[wilsynet]

As merely two examples, both gRPC and Kubernetes are important to Google, and yet Google opened sourced them. "No longer used" is not the criteria Google uses to make their software OSS.

FYI, I work at Google.

[jefftk]

Google Wave is the only counterexample I can think of, where it was "we're deprecating this project, but releasing it as open source".

[bsimpson]

I don't think Google generally opensources _products_ - either it always is open source (Android) or never is (web apps). I can't think of an example where a product was closed source, released as open source, and continually maintained.

Open source at Google generally takes the form of libraries rather than products. Often, that's something that an individual engineer is working on, and it's easier to open source than get the copyright reassigned (since Google by default owns any code you write). There are also libraries that are open sourced for business reasons - e.g. SDKs. You can tell the difference, because most individually-driven libraries contain the copy "Not an official Google product" in the README.

[PaulHoule]

I'd say both of those are actively harmful products (like PFOS or cigarettes) that hurt Google's competition by being open sourced. Google wrecked their own productivity, the least they could do was wreck everybody else's.

[dieortin]

And why would any of those be harmful? Care to elaborate?

[tomrod]

Thanks for clarifying